A reminder is in order. It's interesting Novak hasn't changed his opinion on doping in 3 years: a) he was claiming the sport has integrity just like now b) he thought having to call in 365 days a year was a bit too much but fair since everyone is getting treated the same; still thinks that way (WTF 2015 interview)

The only difference between then and now is the fact that the media are spinning his words to suit their 2016 agenda - distract Djokovic as much they can from winning more important titles.

Man y'all keep validating my signature.

04-22-2016 03:30 AM

Logos

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

A reminder is in order. It's interesting Novak hasn't changed his opinion on doping in 3 years: a) he was claiming the sport has integrity just like now b) he thought having to call in 365 days a year was a bit too much but fair since everyone is getting treated the same; still thinks that way (WTF 2015 interview)

The only difference between then and now is the fact that the media are spinning his words to suit their 2016 agenda - distract Djokovic as much they can from winning more important titles.

01-26-2013 07:26 AM

sportstennis

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

poor Armstrong.

realy.

01-25-2013 04:40 AM

heya

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

No drug helped the 2003-2006 players, but Fed fans need to ridicule the top 2 slam opponents who are two of the best of all time. Murray embarrassed Federer at age 19-20 and he has only a slam overall.

besides the obvious, it's interesting that his serving problem has gone away, which he originally changed because he had a poor motion which made him use extra energy. Guess he just has extra energy to spare with his new diet.

That's actually incorrect. If you watch Nole in 2007, for instance, when he defeated Federer in the Canada Masters final, he served really easily and well. Then Nole had a minor injury and in order to protect the shoulder he changed his serving motion. That was a mistake and he acquired bad habits. Then he hired Todd Martin who really messed up his serving, once Todd Martin was gone, he relearned his serving motion. It was very gradual: it started by tossing the ball a little higher in the beginning. It's nothing to do with strength or energy.

I was there, suffering in 2009, when Nole hit more double faults than aces.

I guess you will see what you want to see. Maybe he has found a drug that helps him keep his nerves to save MP after MP.

But I wonder why he didn't dope for the USO final, when he clearly lost because his legs gave p, having had to play 3 days in a row. Surely that match was important enough to desevre a good dose.

If he had said "morally" people might have misinterpreted it as being not legal. 'Morally' is subjective. Some people have commited murders and claim that they were morally justified.

So Novak wanted to make sure that his answer was the he wasn't breaking any rules, that everything he did was above board in an objective sense.

I think the News Sports segment that you're referring to is shocking: it's the usual anti-Novak nuance taht has been around since I've been following Novak, in 2005.

All athletes keep their training and recovery routines secret: they don't want to give any advantages to their adversaries. But the way it was phrased (according to what you posted, I didn't hear it) makes it sound as if Novak should have answered and refused to, typical.

People keep talking about Novak's "sudden" transformation, as if he came from nowhere. He was he #3 player for 4 straight years, and in 2010 he was ranked #2 for half the year (although nobody mentioned that fact, except me on several forums ) Then he made his final push and became the #1. If people were surprised, it's because instead of watching tennis, they just read about it.

As someone following Djokovic since 2005 you'd know about the reputation he gathered for being unfit due to his high profile retirements for "breathing problems" and constant MTO antics in 5 setters.

That's the transformation people talk about.

It could be a psychological transformation as much as anything else. He's grown up a bit, cut out some of the gamesmanship and sorted out some problems that were mostly in his head.

Testing should be improved, or made more frequent, or whatever would make people feel better. But innuendoes and accusations without evidence are definitely not on, in my book.

Testing will never improve if public, players, coaches, associations, etc do not demand or even talk about it.
The chinese swimmers would never have been caught in the mid-late 90s had other swimmers and coaches were not talking about them.
There were so much innuendos and accusations against Armstrong, and yes it helped, because tehy put so much pressure on UCI or in this case USADA or WADA to take more drastic actions.

If he had said "morally" people might have misinterpreted it as being not legal. 'Morally' is subjective. Some people have commited murders and claim that they were morally justified.

So Novak wanted to make sure that his answer was the he wasn't breaking any rules, that everything he did was above board in an objective sense.

I think the News Sports segment that you're referring to is shocking: it's the usual anti-Novak nuance taht has been around since I've been following Novak, in 2005.

All athletes keep their training and recovery routines secret: they don't want to give any advantages to their adversaries. But the way it was phrased (according to what you posted, I didn't hear it) makes it sound as if Novak should have answered and refused to, typical.

People keep talking about Novak's "sudden" transformation, as if he came from nowhere. He was he #3 player for 4 straight years, and in 2010 he was ranked #2 for half the year (although nobody mentioned that fact, except me on several forums ) Then he made his final push and became the #1. If people were surprised, it's because instead of watching tennis, they just read about it.

I wonder what will happen if Roger beats Andy after a tough 5-setter, at the age of 31, not 25. Will they grill him about his recovery?

Andy himself has taken fitness to another level, yet nobody, as far as I know, has accused him of doping. Lendl himself, when he was a player, transformed himself into an unbeatable robot... No questions there either.

As they shouldn't be, there's no evidence. To single out Nole is unfair, in my opinion.

Testing should be improved, or made more frequent, or whatever would make people feel better. But innuendoes and accusations without evidence are definitely not on, in my book.

You mention 2010, maybe you remember this match:

[youtube]gf78O2Se2cY[/youtube]

besides the obvious, it's interesting that his serving problem has gone away, which he originally changed because he had a poor motion which made him use extra energy. Guess he just has extra energy to spare with his new diet.

01-24-2013 01:46 AM

Fujee

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

40 on Fuentes list :/

01-23-2013 11:32 PM

PeteCentral

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

What's wrong with doping ?

01-23-2013 11:19 PM

philosophicalarf

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

We know tennis has lots of doping, because Fuentes said he had 40 tennis players on his books.

Unsurprisingly, the testing hasn't caught any of them - as expected, given we have pretty much the weakest antidoping in all of sport.

If he had said "morally" people might have misinterpreted it as being not legal. 'Morally' is subjective. Some people have commited murders and claim that they were morally justified.

So Novak wanted to make sure that his answer was the he wasn't breaking any rules, that everything he did was above board in an objective sense.

I think the News Sports segment that you're referring to is shocking: it's the usual anti-Novak nuance taht has been around since I've been following Novak, in 2005.

All athletes keep their training and recovery routines secret: they don't want to give any advantages to their adversaries. But the way it was phrased (according to what you posted, I didn't hear it) makes it sound as if Novak should have answered and refused to, typical.

People keep talking about Novak's "sudden" transformation, as if he came from nowhere. He was he #3 player for 4 straight years, and in 2010 he was ranked #2 for half the year (although nobody mentioned that fact, except me on several forums ) Then he made his final push and became the #1. If people were surprised, it's because instead of watching tennis, they just read about it.

I wonder what will happen if Roger beats Andy after a tough 5-setter, at the age of 31, not 25. Will they grill him about his recovery?

Andy himself has taken fitness to another level, yet nobody, as far as I know, has accused him of doping. Lendl himself, when he was a player, transformed himself into an unbeatable robot... No questions there either.

As they shouldn't be, there's no evidence. To single out Nole is unfair, in my opinion.

Testing should be improved, or made more frequent, or whatever would make people feel better. But innuendoes and accusations without evidence are definitely not on, in my book.

They single him out because he's the number 1 player, it goes with the job.

01-23-2013 11:17 PM

zebedee

Re: Djokovic on Armstrong, cycling, doping etc

Just as well your book doesn't rule the roost then. Armstrong is proof that the proof you insist on is meaningless. With him there wasn't any proof either. 500 tests, was it, he passed?

What proof do you require when players know how to flout doping tests? It's not an easy question to answer.

The eyes are on novak at the moment. The sky news segment on his match was introduced with "novak refused to answer questions about recovery"......

I think he is legally clean and just doing old school methods but I dont know. If there is a doping list and some new variant that is not on it - "legally" you can take it.

I just wish he replaced the word legally with morally. I'm a brit - You gotta win fair. lol

If he had said "morally" people might have misinterpreted it as being not legal. 'Morally' is subjective. Some people have commited murders and claim that they were morally justified.

So Novak wanted to make sure that his answer was the he wasn't breaking any rules, that everything he did was above board in an objective sense.

I think the News Sports segment that you're referring to is shocking: it's the usual anti-Novak nuance taht has been around since I've been following Novak, in 2005.

All athletes keep their training and recovery routines secret: they don't want to give any advantages to their adversaries. But the way it was phrased (according to what you posted, I didn't hear it) makes it sound as if Novak should have answered and refused to, typical.

People keep talking about Novak's "sudden" transformation, as if he came from nowhere. He was he #3 player for 4 straight years, and in 2010 he was ranked #2 for half the year (although nobody mentioned that fact, except me on several forums ) Then he made his final push and became the #1. If people were surprised, it's because instead of watching tennis, they just read about it.

I wonder what will happen if Roger beats Andy after a tough 5-setter, at the age of 31, not 25. Will they grill him about his recovery?

Andy himself has taken fitness to another level, yet nobody, as far as I know, has accused him of doping. Lendl himself, when he was a player, transformed himself into an unbeatable robot... No questions there either.

As they shouldn't be, there's no evidence. To single out Nole is unfair, in my opinion.

Testing should be improved, or made more frequent, or whatever would make people feel better. But innuendoes and accusations without evidence are definitely not on, in my book.

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.